One of the significant problems in modern elections (see, for example, the 2012 presidential election) is that voters often have to wait in long lines to cast their votes. Lines are often slow and patience is required in some places. The upshot and result is that an inestimable number of people either leave before casting a ballot or fail to vote. This is an unacceptable consequence.
Absentee and early voting is a poor substitute, since these voters ballots are cast before the designated election day, such that they necessarily miss out on information about issues and candidates that come up late in an election cycle. In addition, in many jurisdictions absentee ballots are treated as provisional ballots and not counted unless a particular issue or race is very close. In many places absentee votes are not counted unless they could make a difference. In other places, rigorous conditions must be met before absentee voters are counted. Often these conditions present traps for the unwary.
Voting on the internet may alleviate some of the problems with wait times and long lines at a polling location. However, internet voting presents significant challenges, some of which may be overcome, and some of which are inherent in the medium. Internet voting requires a tradeoff of either anonymity (the vote and voter ID remain locked together although allegedly separated by an encryption wall) or transparency (there is only an electronic record of the vote). Voting in a public polling location remains preferable to internet voting in most situations despite potentially waiting in line because voting in a secure public polling location with a private voting space eliminates coercion by others, thus ensuring votes cast are actually those intended by the voters.
Today's reality is that the number of mobile devices is proliferating, and the trend shows all signs of continuing or accelerating. There is a proliferation of web connected cell phones, tablets and the like. Internet access is available, usually for free, in a large number of business establishments (e.g. Starbucks, McDonalds). Internet connected computers in homes and wireless internet access are ubiquitous in many places, particularly densely populated places.
Smart phones and similar devices provide interactive devices for users. Interactivity, when used in a relaxed environment can help the voter navigate, and prevent many voter errors. The combination of interactivity with readily available internet access provides a potentially powerful combination. Interactivity can be used to inform voters as they engage in the process. A voter who can conduct research as he/she is actually filling out a ballot is a more informed voter. Informed voters are the core of democracy.
Interactivity can also provide significant capability to disabled voters. Many disabled voters will have their own interactive device. If the voter does not have an interactive, web enabled device, they can be set up at the poll site, with HAVA compliant capabilities.
In all cases, today's electronic/interactive voting has significant limitations.
Transparency is limited since there are only records in a database. As a practical matter there is no way to confirm that votes were cast as intended or counted as cast. Voter verifiable receipts are difficult and cumbersome, and on-site voting machines are inherently inefficient. For every second that someone is using a voting machine, everyone else is precluded from doing so.
On-site, fully electronic voting machines are so inefficient that certain compromises are already made in the process to try to speed the casting of votes. Most fully electronic systems that are used at poll sited do not warn voters of “undervotes” (i.e. failing to vote in a race). For all of these reasons, there is a need for a new method of filling out ballots and casting votes that takes advantage of interactive devices such as smart phones in order to improve the voter experience, improve vote accuracy and transparency, and reduce or eliminate wait times at polling locations while maintaining the inherent benefits of public polling places with private vote casting booths.